I did read this:
As more of an aggravating factor but I guess it plays against Everton being warned in January 21 they were in trouble and not actually being charged until the period ending in the summer of 22. We are going to claim we had a problem cause by our somewhat unique circumstances (promotion after 23 years with hardly any players) but it was brief and, as of now, in the past.
I think our best hope is that they are wary of public and internal football opinion turning against the rules and they deduct less than 6 points.
My guess would still be 4-6 points - but who knows
Exciting times
That’s been my guess since Everton’s appeal, with them having a total of 8-10 (probably 8 as the appeal made it clear they are using administration as a benchmark).
Do we still have to say Man City is a different situation and isn't relevant?
Yes, but you have to say it 115 times.
Noticeably he says Forest haven't embarked on a propaganda war like Everton, including briefing journalists. I would like to know where the Brennan defence line came from though, if it wasn't deliberately leaked to a journalist...
Yes. I’m glad we haven’t gone down Everton’s ‘victims/corruption’ route which feels more pathetic with every passing game. But someone has certainly framed Forest’s position for the media.
Though didn't the Everton appeal refer to the outpouring from supporters etc as a factor in changing the decision?
So basically shouting and crying a lot gets you what you want.
See Bruno Fernandes and free kicks.
Scousers gonna Scouse
Please credit your material, thanks.
If you said it first I completely retract my comment - it is clearly moronic
Calm down.
If we've got a formal note from Spuz stating their intent, and especially if we informed the Prem, then I'm going to cling to my 6 points suspended dream.
Accountants are not well known for their laissez faire attitude to feelz. What did the books say on the deadline?
All the people deciding on punishments are kc's
